By comparing the angle of the face, and especially the highlights on chin and right cheekbone, not only does it appear to me that Monamy intended to create a likeness of Broughton, but that he based his portrayal directly on the mezzotint. Or perhaps on the portrait on which the mezzotint is based. Can the mezzotint be dated? Austin Dobson, in William Hogarth, 1907, under the heading of Paintings of Uncertain Date, p.207, records a painting of John Broughton, the Prize-fighter: "Exhibited in 1817 by Lord Camden; belonged then to Mr.H.R.Willett, at whose sale in 1869 it was sold for £75 12s (12 x 17½ in.). There is a version at Lowther Castle (Earl of Lonsdale). Dobson also lists two prints featuring Broughton "by or after" Hogarth, Broughton & Slack; and John Broughton, Prize Fighter, "From the Original Picture (of the same size) by William Hogarth. In the Collection of Henry Ralph Willett, Esqre of Merly House, in the County of Dorset". 11½ x 16½. October 2006. Serendipity has now provided me with the likeness at left, above. This comes from Wonderful Characters, by Wilson & Caulfield, 1869, but it may have first appeared as early as 1821. The author(s) give an interesting account of Broughton's career. |
 | Broughton simply cannot have been born in 1704 and won the first race in 1715. Otherwise, a statement that he forced "the pile-driving force upon his man" is fully credible. |
Almost all the images on this and associated pages were obtained by courtesy of The Company of Watermen & Lightermen of the River Thames, whose interest and generosity is gratefully acknowledged. When discussing the painting with the Clerk of the Company, who is also an artist, he drew my attention to the manner in which the light falls on the sculler and his craft, which he considered to be skilful and remarkable. The oarsman has his left oar in the backward rowlock, to hold the boat against the current. I cannot think of another painting like this, produced before or since, and consider it uniquely evocative of its time and place, and the event it commemorates. A sophisticated judge of marine painting would naturally much prefer a beautiful "shipping" scene by Leemans. |
 | When Old Noll, with great Lewis, and Baubon are forgot, And when numberless Kings in oblivion shall rot. "A father's dislike for his eldest son is a universal characteristic of the human race which has greatly exercised generations of psycho-analysts. ..... the most obvious, and the most bitter, example of a father's loathing for his eldest son is provided by the relationship between George II and Frederick, Prince of Wales." From Blood Royal, Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson, pp 59-60. Since it rapidly became clear after 1727 that George II was favouring Walpole, it is small wonder that the Opposition gathered around Frederick, Prince of Wales, who was foully treated by both his parents. |
It doesn't seem to me, in this day and age, that fathers generally loathe their eldest sons, although I can admittedly think of a few cases where this has been so. The dislike of George II for his heir Frederick was quite phenomenal. Some might say it was based on fear of an oedipal revenge expected from the son, but I have come across no record of Frederick expressing hatred for his parents, although he had cause enough. Roman Catholicism, presumably, is a religion of the Father, whereas Lutheran Protestantism is a religion of the revolutionary Son. The barge designed for Poor Fred by Kent, above, now in the Maritime Museum, would have been powered by Thames watermen. As liberty-inclined Hanoverians, it may have given them some satisfaction to transport the figurehead of the Walpole opposition, inadequate though he may have been. |
Doggett's 283rd (?) Race Results slip, 13th July 1998